I was on a panel at The Battle of Ideas conference on music at the weekend, and it went a bit beyond your usual digital music panel.
There was a good turnout - considering there were six concurrent panels, all of them interesting. Everyone got to make a six-minute opening question. Here's mine, and the highlights of the rest of …

COMMENTS

Page:

Yes but...

There's one place this isn't true. If you sell the most insurance policies, or the most cars, generally you'll have the most money too.

When you sell cars you don't keep on getting paid for them for 70 years after you die.

You should be rewarded for your creation but the current copyright law extends that to far into the future and all it ends up doing is suppressing the release of old content in favour of new. As an example, there is a lot of music of the fifties and sixties that I would like to hear again (yes I am that old) but would never be able to purchase. If the copyright had been allowed to expire on it then those who have the records could digitise and legally share them.

Perhaps a solution would be to expire the copyrights unless the content is actively being sold, that way the music companies (and it usually is the music companies, not the artists) could still make money on Elvis's back catalogue and those who wanted to could still buy less popular records (if available) or legally share if not.

Re: Yes but...

I find the car analogy a bit irrelevant, but in principle I agree - copyright shouldn't last so long, I think no more than 20 years (or maybe another 20 for actively marketed content as you mention)

But that's only part of the puzzle. If copyright is limited to 20 years, then the artists should be able to be adequately compensated during those 20 years, and currently they are not. And most Internet users, myself included, object very strongly to intrusive controls and checks on my digital life.

Back to the car analogy, imagine if I couldn't start the engine unless the car sent my fingerprint to the manufacturer's HQ and matched it to a list of authorisd users. Instant FAIL. But that's an issue we solved a long time ago with physical goods - I have a car key, and that constitutes my proof of ownership (not infallible but good enough). DRM needs to be looked at in that way - there needs to be a key to open a protected file, but it can't be so intrusive that it calls home every time, or that it highly limits what I can or cannot do with it.

Re: Yes but...

"DRM needs to be looked at in that way - there needs to be a key to open a protected file, but it can't be so intrusive that it calls home every time, or that it highly limits what I can or cannot do with it."

Nice idea and I was thinking along the same lines, you have a personal key and that is attached to the file when you buy it. Every copy of every piece of content would have a unique id and your personal key would be logged as the owner in the file itself and on some central system (no personal info, just key and content id). There could then be web-sites/tools that would allow you to pass ownership to someone else but only by directly modifying the actual file through the central registry so it is no longer usable by you. Your personal key would be a unique binary value but it would not be linked to you in any central system or be traceable, it would simply be a key that you generate, retain, and associate with all your devices, those devices would be able to directly verify that your key is associated with the file before playing it and could contact the central registry whenever new content is loaded to receive a revocation list for content you have passed onto others. Obviously to provide full anonymity while providing copy protection, the purchasing systems would have to be such that the device you use to do the purchase knows your key but the vendor itself doesn't, and the central registry would only have an association between keys and content, no individual identity information.

But I can't really see it working, I don't see there being any way a key&lock mechanism could be designed that would be secure enough (every form of DRM to date has been broken open) maybe there is some bright spark out there who can though?

Re: Yes but... @Andrew Orlowski

I have some sympathy with Life+70 being too long for songs - but it's not going to change without upsetting the authors, so it's not going to change.

Sorry, I'm a little bit confused, if the author has copyright for 70 years how come EMI, HMV, and Parlophone was able to release a Morrissey boxed set without paying him a penny? Are you confusing the creators of music and the copyright mafiaa who exploit them?

The answer to a broken system is not to extend it.

If an artist can't make enough money over the traditional copyright term then extending it is hardly a solution. Art is a fleeting thing. You have to make your money quickly while your stuff is new enough to be in fashion or you quickly get overshadowed by things that are in fashion.

By the time 20 years has past you've lost your opportunity. It's not coming back. Distorting copyright isn't going to help you.

Re: Yes but...

Working DRM is impossible. Not "unlikely", not "impossible given current technology", impossible. There is no way to simultaneously give someone the ability to get at the cleartext of an encrypted/protected message, and prohibit them from copying that message (be that message a song, video, document, anything).

Anyone who could make foolproof, or even near foolproof, DRM, would be rich overnight. And a lot of people try for that reason. Yet every last scheme gets cracked, because it -has- to get cracked--in the end, you have to give the end user the means to open the lock, no matter how much you obfuscate it. Otherwise what you've sold them is worthless.

the lock (and key)

"you have to give the end user the means to open the lock"

spot on Seraphim. Sad, but true.

At the end of the day , even when the 'key' is buried in the hardware of a dvd player, or a sky box , You can always metaphorically or litrally if required "hold a mike (or camcorder) to the tv screen".

They have in the past considered taxing blank media to get at this problem from that end . Wether that money would go to copyright victims or just into the govt trough is another matter :(

I am much against that as there are obviously many legal uses for blank media.

Its as logical to me as taxing my beer to the point of unaffordability just to prevent idiots from hurting themslves.

Re: Yes but...

" I don't see there being any way a key&lock mechanism could be designed that would be secure enough"

The thing is, it does not need to be 100% unbreakable, just like a car key isn't 100% foolproof. Thieves can break open and start up a car that they don't have keys to, but it takes a lot of effort. As long as a DRM system is non-intrusive (as you outline), simple to use, and content is reasonably priced, the market will work.

Targeting a system that is 100% unbreakable is unfeasible and shouldn't be the target

Re: Yes but... @Andrew

"The problem you describe isn't a problem though. You can hear new music made in the 1950 by buying - it is very cheap."

Right there is the item that started the entire mess in the first place. When file-sharing first appeared, it became so popular because finally, what had been incredibly hard-to-find music suddenly became commonplace. The people that had, could share with the people that wanted. It was the start of a new paradigm in entertainment where the industry no longer possessed the ability to say "we don't think it'll be profitable enough to sell that album again, so we won't make it anymore".

But instead of attempting to work with that new technology we've had more than 12 years of fruitless lawsuits, and the music industry still doesn't show much of an interest in changing.

Yes, there is a lot more music from the 1950s, or any era, available then there used to be, but how much of it is still unavailable? How much is only available as a digital download, usually with unpleasant DRM or poor-quality bitrates? How much of it that is only available, in physical or digital format, in only a few select countries? These are all problems still faced by people who *WANT* to be cash-paying customers but who's only option to get what they want, in a format they can use, and a quality that they want to use, is to pirate it.

The big point, to me, about the past and present states of technology in all of this, and which was slightly touched on during this meeting, is that it was advances in technology that brought about the last century of the music industry and occasional artist wealth. Throughout history, few artists of any flavor have acquired great wealth or have had fame beyond their locale.

Technology changed that, briefly, and now that bubble has burst, or at least it's been changed to be smaller bubbles. Unless the industry can manage to quickly come up with some sort of miracle technology to change things, it's era is gone. More artist's WILL have to return to the pre-tech era and scrape their livings from live appearances. Those appearances might not be quite as flashy as they used to be, and the venues may be smaller, along with the paychecks, but it's still possible. One big difference will be that file-sharing will still provide an advertising of sorts, so that artists will be more able to become known outside of limited areas. What's likely really over is the time when one successful album would be income-for-life (if saved properly).

You had some good points in the talk Andrew, pity you couldn't get through it without a *tard comment.

Re: Yes but... @Andrew

Technology has hugely reduced production and distribution costs for the music industry but it is a double edged sword - enabling others to distribute content with near zero cost. The music industry (obviously) would rather this sword was single edged

I don't agree with Orlowski

The concept of creating laws (i.e., copyright) to increase the value of 'content' is a gift of society to the content creators. Are we willing to give up our privacy to make content creators happy? I don't think so.

The problem in the discussion, I think, is that there's a childlike, Utopian view that content creators deserve a reward that is as large as it was in the old (pre-internet) days. But there is much more content available via the internet now (nobody requires a publisher to get his written word or his music out into the world). The rewards for content creators must therefore shrink drastically, because a lot of not-so-brilliant content is now competing with the effort of hobbyists. Is this bad for society? I don't think so. A lot of smart professionals can now stop repackaging old content and instead try to be come productive members of society.

The cake for content creators has shrunk, because the market went from content-starved to content-overkill. And not just due to hobbyists, but also due to the fact that content became portable and there is no need to visit your grandpa to borrow some of his classical music collection.

Re: I don't agree with Orlowski

" Are we willing to give up our privacy to make content creators happy? I don't think so."

You have no privacy if you can't assert permissions on "your stuff". Your stuff = your photos you post to Flickr, your data trail, your identity. It belongs to you. If you can't assert ownership and permissions, privacy ceases to exist.

Re: I don't agree with Orlowski

" Are we willing to give up our privacy to make content creators happy?"

This question seems to assume that it's a complete either-or, and that should not be the case. I should be able to use digital files without that use being monitored, and content creators need to be able to be paid for acquisition / use of their content. Doesn't need to be mutually exclusive.

Sure there are technical difficulties, but these can be surmounted as long as the stakeholders on both sides agree to the broad principle above. And it doesn't need to super-foolproof - it just needs to be set up so that it's more convenient to legitimately buy music than to pirate it... while in reality even from a convenience point of view it's easier to download a torrent.

Not music, but I see it in practice on TV. I have a TV box through which I can pay a small amount to watch a film. The selection is limited, the search functionality is pitiful and many times the film I want isn't available in my desired language. In many cases I would happily pay 3 or 4 quid to watch a film, but the time and aggravation it usually takes means it's infinitely easier to find the film on a torrent site.

Now, what is stopping my provider from having a catalogue of every film that ever made it to a theater in the last 20 years, have it available in 4-8 languages + subtitles (same as I can find on most DVDs or Blu-Rays), and make the whole thing properly searchable? I don't know, but it sure is costing them a lot of missed sales.

Re: I don't agree with Orlowski

Like most non-creators you're confusing quantity with quality.

The fact that anyone can do something does not mean everyone should. Talented creators are *specialists.* They have unique skills and talents that no amount of amateur diddling around with a laptop can match - any more than you'd trust an amateur part-engineer to design a bridge that didn't fall down, or an amateur part-time surgeon to remove your appendix.

The difference is the arts are somewhat subjective. But if the arts are supposed to ignore any concept of quality or talent, we might as well stop bothering with them entirely.

Do you really want a world where no great new music, games or movies can ever be made because creators can only work part time? If you do, then fine - stop funding them.

Re: I don't agree with Orlowski

> You have no privacy if you can't assert permissions on "your stuff". Your stuff = your photos you post to Flickr, your data trail, your identity. It belongs to you. If you can't assert ownership and permissions, privacy ceases to exist.

You really believe that?

You really believe that if I sell you a print of photograph I should have the right to enter your home and search it to ensure you haven't copied it? Unless I can assert my permissions (by entering your home) on my photograph I have no privacy?

Had you said defend rather than assert I might have had some sympathy with your position.

Re: I don't agree with Orlowski

> Do you really want a world where no great new music, games or movies can ever be made because creators can only work part time? If you do, then fine - stop funding them.

Since we talking about music perhaps you could tell me which great singer or musician currently works 40 hours a week on their music? All the ones who have made money seem to spend most of their time telling others how to live, doing charity work, recovering from hangovers or in rehab with the occasional day spent composing/singing/song writing. Part time work seems perfect for them.

Re: I don't agree with Orlowski

"My stuff" is private papers. It is not creative output. We have this perverted world view driven by large content owning corporations that every worthless scrap of paper should be treated like Shakespeare. A lot of stuff is not intended to be "shared" or published EVER. The assumption that everything is meant to be published is just stupid and counterproductive.

Re: I don't agree with Orlowski

It is highly unlikely that "artistes" will agree to any regime that allows you do do what you want with what you've bought without being subject to Big Brother. Content cartels are simply unwilling to treat the customer with any respect. They are all megalomaniacs that think the rest of us are thieves (projecting most likely).

Re: I don't agree with Orlowski

> Like most non-creators you're confusing quantity with quality.

Like most posers you conflate a brand name with quality. The Jurassic publishers allow plenty of dreck to be published while suppressing good work. What is commercially viable seldom coincides with "quality".

> Do you really want a world where no great new music, games or movies can ever be made because creators can only work part time?

A false choice.

The real problem is that the new has to compete with all of the classics from they entire history of recording technology. You don't have to settle for today's dreck. You can choose to watch any Doctor you like. With as much money as the average consumer is expected to spend, you can easily reach escape velocity and accumulate enough stuff that you never have to pay for anything else again.

State funded is a bad thing?

Most people I talk to argue about price and choice and availability not moral right or wrong. (you should pay for something you consume unless it is really being given free, not much to argue here).

In the past all radio stations that played pop music were pirate. They were pursued by the recording industry. To the best of my knowledge the only thing that changed the status of them was the state enforcing a system of micropayments or royalty. I like the radio. I think a large section of the population and artists agree that the pop radio is, on balance, a good thing. I "pay" for radio by listening to adverts.

Library's are mentioned as an example of a sharing institution based on IP. This is true but the funding does not come from a business model. Private libraries have a very spotted history and, I believe, the most successful ones were beneficiaries from altruistic payments.

My current favourite way of listening to music (while not in my car) is last.fm. I am not too sure of their business model but I believe it is in part to their pushing some bands above other ones. I used to listen to spotify but I constantly got irritated by different labels pulling their collections and my playlists no longer working.

I would like the government to step in and force an agreement like with the radios. Streaming music is here to stay. The methods for listening to this should be available.

With regards to sales, the cost and availablity is what really gets my friends annoyed (I don't buy all that much and don't pirate at all since uni) is the region agreements where they cannot legally buy what they want to in this country and the price issues. A CD in the shops being 5 pounds (quite old cd now) for 12+ tracks. On the internet you have to buy them at 99p per track. With no distribution costs (including shelf space which can be expensive), physical manufacturing costs and less cuts from third parties why does it cost more for a product that is provably worse. As by UK law I am not allowed to lend my tracks downloaded but can my cd?

In the past all radio stations that played pop music were pirate

Actually they were not. The problem was specifically in the UK and pre-dated the 1960s.

In the 1930s and late 1940s to early 1960s people listened to the "Popular" music in the UK after dark on Foreign stations.

The UK Postmaster General controlled the airwaves. Till the Light Program and then the Third program started after the war any sort of music fan was badly served. UK had ONLY the Home Service during daytime. (And World Service in some area).

208 wasn't a Pirate station and specifically targeted UK after dark. US AFN was popular too in 1940s and 1950s for Popular music.

Ireland only had one station till about 1972!

Other countries had more choice. Pirate radio was actually a quite short lived phenomenon most popular in UK. The Pirate station in Post War Europe that caused so much grief that the BBC asked to roll out VHF,eventually started in 1955 (in US pre war and on current band in 1945 and in Germany from 1949) was a Latvian station the Russians for some reason ignored.

UK VHF stupidly only had copy of Home, Light and Third till about 1971!!!! German VHF had loads of useful stations.

It's actually amazing that UK started ITV in 1955. and having done it, didn't licence commercial Radio on VHF-FM at same time.

Re: State funded is a bad thing?

The arguments you put forth are sound (although I don't like the state-funded part, very much). In general, the state doesn't do a very good job of regulating anything, and the internet is no exception.

The most obvious consequence of the internet's impact on the entertainment industry is that there are now many more outlets for creative content distribution i.e. netflix, spotify, Itunes, streaming radio and of course, bit-torrents and pirate bays. For the most part, consumers are flocking to these outlets because they get what they want, not because they don't want to pay. All attempts to stop this natural market progression are doomed to fail.

Simply put, the business model of stamping content onto bits of plastic and charging for each physical unit's consumption is on its deathbed

What is not dead is the need to continue paying artists and creators for their work.

As a consumer, my wish is to consume music, film, television and news anywhere and everywhere without having to open my wallet every time I consume.

Given that the internet is the shared medium by which this all happens, it is clear that billing (if there is to be any) must happen here, at what is essentially the point of sale.

So, logic (as well as human economic behavior) dictates that we will move ever closer to centralized internet distribution models where customers can pay a flat rate and artists should get a fair percentage of that rate payment.

This is what the entertainment industry should try to develop, if it wants to survive. I (and I am sure many will agree with me) would happily pay a bit more for my monthly bandwidth connection if it let me watch the latest blockbuster films (in my favorite language), play all my oldies but goldies and listen to the latest music offerings, without shelling out 20 bucks and discovering that it is crap.

Those who want to sell me content should make my life easier, not harder. I don't have any trouble seeing that extra revenue I spend each month go back to the people who provide that content.

We're forgetting one much bigger point: if we reward art, we get more of it. And why should you have a shitty job in Tesco or a call centre and have great talent but not be able to go to market with it?"

Yes because "artists" are better than the rest of us and shouldn't have to work for a living.

Get off your entitled high horse and maybe you will find some moral ground to stand on.

@Oddbin

"Yes because "artists" are better than the rest of us and shouldn't have to work for a living."

I think that comment sums up the core issue: modern society has very little respect for art and culture and hence places an incredibly low value on the extraordinary amounts of time and effort some artists expend on producing the content that our modern society loves to consume for free.

Art IS Work

Oddbin, who is to say that what YOU do is a "real job"? How much value to you actually create in the economy? If you work in software, how about we say that all software should be freeware and that YOU should get a "real job"? If you work in hardware, how about we say that you can only charge exactly what the parts cost, nothing more for your experience, effort, or marketing expenses. And if you don't like that, then get a "real job"!

I really find it STUNNING how many people reading El Reg work in software, and DO NOT take the side of the artists and producers on this. Because frankly, that stuff that WE get paid for is likely to be the next thing to suffer such a massive downturn in sales, and our jobs are likely to dry up next (those that haven't been sent to India already). Us tech heads should be natural allies of the artists that are suffering from digital piracy, but for some reason the thrill of having 200Gigs of pirated music on our laptops prevents our brains from projecting the future progression of digital piracy to our own doorsteps...stupid and short sighted IMHO.

Yes because "artists" are the same as the rest of us and deserve to be paid for their time and effort. In my current show I'm on stage for 2 hours. That's what you're apparently paying for. What you don't see is that the show means a 14-hour day for 12 people with something like £25,000-worth of kit.

Product development, market research, capital investment, advertising, training (practice, practice, practice!). Every industry has to cover these costs. Music is no different.

Re: If you think art isn't work

^^^ THIS ^^^

I used to live with a concert violinist in NYC, and she was THE hardest working person I know for the amount of money she made from it. Very satisfying to actually play Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, etc., but she was literally living hand to mouth, gigging, practicing endlessly, finishing her music Phd., and teaching. At age 43, after finding herself without enough money to actually get home from the airport after a gig because she forgot to pre-book her rental car on the cheap rate, she gave up and went to business school at Wharton, and then started a successful on-line college-prep tutoring company (Ivy Sage, look them up). So let me tell you about work...you don't KNOW about work compared to her (and her other musician friends), I would bet.

Re: If you think art isn't work

Is this about art or invention? Why is someone inventing music different to someone inventing a new vacuum cleaner. Why should one be protected and the other not? In fact why should neither be protected? If you don't allow talent to make money we're surely just going to slide back into the pools of slime we came from.

Re: If you think art isn't work

Yes but no-one's pirating the pianist's or violinist's works are they? They put the effort in, they're presumably being rewarded for it. You may have a point somewhere but you have to compare like for like.

Re: Art IS Work

Then "the market" needs to enforce intellectual property rights equally. If you don't do it for artists, then as I have written elsewhere, then you should not do it for anything else. That includes all software designs, all hardware designs, all auto designs, all industrial tooling designs, all chemical patents, all drug patents, etc.

Give that 20 years and see what kind of a bare-bones world you live in. One frozen in 2013 I'd expect. Why invest in drug research when it can be copied in 5 minutes by a firm that didn't pay for it? Why invent new uses for carbon nanatubes when someone else can manufacture them immediately? Why write a new game, when anyone else can reverse-assemble it, rebrand it, and sell it as their own? Why perfect a new engine design that uses 5% less fuel, when it can be copied immediately by firms in China? So..those things don't happen. Welcome to 2033...same as 2013 just with more people.

Or are you just saying that artists are a special case, and you are OK stealing from them alone?

If an artist is performing live, then they have a paying audience. Piracy is not an issue. You do the work, you get paid, along with all the others that contribute to that event.

The issues surrounding copyright and recordings are very different waters.

In the modern age, copyright as a legal concept just doesn't work. In truth it has never has except that distribution and reproduction was non-trivial and not economic for the person in the street to do.

Copyright had nothing to do with it. Punters bought records, videos and DVDs because it made economic sense and even today, that is the primary driver. It is why Lovefilm, Netflix, cinema (that goodness it is seeing a revival) and other delivery "services" etc are so popular and undoubtedly are the future. The problem is the film and music productioncompanies are not in that potentially lucrative business. Others are picking up the slack.

Piracy is and always will be an annoying distraction from the real problem. The IP itself is valueless. The only thing of value is what you do with it. If *all* you have is IP, then you have nothing.

So the general consensus is that if you have any talent that is currently classed as an art that exempts you from working a normal job? Because that's what orlowskis quote says to me.

Did I say people didn't deserve to get paid? Nope. My comment was directed at Orlowskis air of entitlement in his piece that is symptomatic of all the loud voices trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Just because you can wrote a song or paint a picture doesn't mean you automatically deserve money from it. You might have to do a normal boring job.

But oh no lets all jump on the "my poor violinist partner works ever so hard and only gets £25,000 Although got to play in a place that many others would die to Play in". Not getting paid enough? Then do something different. No one is forcing you to play and instrument or write a play or do any of that. It's a choice.

And the products of my work end up in a public register. Do I get paid everytime someone looks at something i have created? nope. Does it bother me? Nope. I got paid to put it there. Job done.

By all means if you have a talent for something do it. But claiming that people who have talent (in your eyes) should be exempt from working in a normal job is just pathetic. Not to mention demeaning to people who do work in places like tesco and then pay YOU.

Re: Art IS Work

Necessity is the mother of invention, not avarice.

Inventors and artists that are worth their skin won't stop producing just because they can't pretend to be Robber Barons. Real talent doesn't act like that. That's why art and invention did not start with the first Anglo-American attempts to regulate creativity.

Many industries thrive despite copycats. Games in particular are notorious for this. So are most other "entertainments".

Content Creators V Content Owners

The biggest problem I feel with a lot of pro copyright crowd is that they always say content creators when they mean the content owners. The majority of the time it is the content owners (record companies/film studios) who want to keep/expand their ability to get paid from others work.

Putting the genie back in the bottle is an impossibility in this digital age and keeping their old ways of doing business shows short sightedness. Instead of innovating they choose to litigate or try to get laws passed that benefit themselves (SOPA/PIPA/ACTA)

Just because something worked in the past for them does not mean that it should always be so.

The lack of understanding of the basics is staggering. People blow holes in their flimsy arguments and undermine their credibility with their opening statements and do so with absolutely no shame or embarrassment whatsoever.

Re: Content Creators V Content Owners

First paragraph from Wikipedia on Recording Contracts:

"Labels typically own the copyright in the records their artists make, and also the master copies of those records. An exception is when a label makes a distribution deal with an artist; in this case, the artist, their manager, or another party may own the copyright (and masters), while the record is licensed exclusively to the label for a set period of time"

Your point that these third parties are licensees for just marketing and sales is a bit off as this type of contract is the exception not the norm. Distribution and 360 deals are usually there for existing artists (See Trent Reznor's latest project he has gone back to an established label for distribution and marketing)

Also I am not blaming individual creative(?) for the practices of Big Business I am blaming Big Business for the crap they try to pull through litigation (sueing people with out a computer for downloading, sueing the dead for downloading) or trying to buy laws (SOPA/PIPA/ACTA)

Re: Content Creators V Content Owners

> Content creators ARE the content owners.They are also the licensor.

Nope. Def Leppard are in the process of reverse engineering their old recordings because this is specifically NOT the case. They are doing this because they are getting shafted by their label (who actually owns the recordings). They are getting shafted on digital file sales (iTunes).

The talent is generally in a bad position to negotiate terms and usually ends up bent over.

This is all about the corporate bullies that take advantage of the talent in various ways.

Re: Content Creators V Content Owners

Re: Content Creators V Content Owners

> Umm, did someone force them to sign that contract at gunpoint?

A perfectly pathological response to a simple rebuttal of a falsely claimed fact.

The fact that you want to stick up for some psychopaths does not alter the fact that those psychopaths are the ones that would benefit from "increased protection for artists" rather than the actual talent.

Denial

Lots of people in denial, it seems to me.

I agree with Andrew that new ways are needed to monetise cultural artifacts, but forcing an old model on a new platform isn't new.

I do not pirate, am a Spotify subscriber, and sometimes buy downloads from artists' sites, CDs, SACDs and Blu-Rays, so I this is not special pleading, but instead of asking how do we enforce copyright on the Internet, the creative industries need to ask how they need to re-organise themselves if copyright cannot be enforced in the traditional way.

What new models will allow artists to thrive without traditional copyright? It may not be legal, or moral, but it is reality that paying for music in the traditional way may be dying. You can complain about that, or you can see what other opportunities are available that weren't before.